• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

West Allis Wisconsin man not guilty in open carry gun case

For Pete's Sake!

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
42
Location
USA
"Cain argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found Washington, D.C.'s gun ban unconstitutional concluded that open carry is "an individual right that shouldn't be abridged by law enforcement. That's what the case is generally all about."

If the SCOTUS said, "that open carry is "an individual right that shouldn't be abridged by law enforcement. Wouldn't this overule the Missouri and other state courts?

""The reason people are upset about this is it's not about guns. It's about civil liberties. And we obviously have a property issue. There was no warrant issued, no exigent circumstances, no permission to enter the property, yet the police stormed in with guns drawn and put my life at risk," Krause said. Asked why he was carrying a gun to plant a tree, Krause said, "There's no requirement to justify why you're able to exercise constitutional rights. I and everyone else are able to go to church, they're able to vote, they're able to speak their mind. Even though the city might not like it, we have that right."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
If the SCOTUS said, "that open carry is "an individual right that shouldn't be abridged by law enforcement. Wouldn't this overule the Missouri and other state courts?

If they had said that, yepper, it would be great. Unfortunately what you are reading is a lawyers interpretation of what they said and I do not think you are going to find SCOTUS using the term "open carry" in the past or any time soon.

SCOTUS put out that it was an individual right but not an unregulated one.

Note that the citizen was on his own property. Even if Olivette bans open carry, they could not come after you on your own property, well they could but it would not stick.

Public property or other property in which you have no ownership interest, well there they can fool with ya.
 

For Pete's Sake!

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
42
Location
USA
If they had said that, yepper, it would be great. Unfortunately what you are reading is a lawyers interpretation of what they said and I do not think you are going to find SCOTUS using the term "open carry" in the past or any time soon.

SCOTUS put out that it was an individual right but not an unregulated one.

Note that the citizen was on his own property. Even if Olivette bans open carry, they could not come after you on your own property, well they could but it would not stick.

Public property or other property in which you have no ownership interest, well there they can fool with ya.


Yes true, but the power of suggestion can be very useful tool. Ask the Progressives, this is how they do it all the time. :lol:
 

LMTD

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Apr 8, 2010
Messages
1,919
Location
, ,
Yes true, but the power of suggestion can be very useful tool. Ask the Progressives, this is how they do it all the time. :lol:

LOL

That one just reaffirmed that open carry is NOT "disturbing the peace" as it is so often tagged.

We will have to do better than that to sell it. One thing about the progressives, they never buy their own BS :)
 

Support The 2nd

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
132
Location
, ,
"Cain argued that the U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that found Washington, D.C.'s gun ban unconstitutional concluded that open carry is "an individual right that shouldn't be abridged by law enforcement. That's what the case is generally all about."

If the SCOTUS said, "that open carry is "an individual right that shouldn't be abridged by law enforcement. Wouldn't this overule the Missouri and other state courts?

""The reason people are upset about this is it's not about guns. It's about civil liberties. And we obviously have a property issue. There was no warrant issued, no exigent circumstances, no permission to enter the property, yet the police stormed in with guns drawn and put my life at risk," Krause said. Asked why he was carrying a gun to plant a tree, Krause said, "There's no requirement to justify why you're able to exercise constitutional rights. I and everyone else are able to go to church, they're able to vote, they're able to speak their mind. Even though the city might not like it, we have that right."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/39722082.html
Forgive me, but this is OLD NEWS! This happened way back in 2008, and he was found not guilty of the municipal charge in February of 2009. Since then, the AG of WI issued a memo stating OC was not disorderly, several lawsuits have been filed (two won) by WCI, and WI has enacted new CCW legislation that specifically codified in law that OC and/or CC are not disorderly.

WI is a proud OC state.

Carry On.
 

For Pete's Sake!

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
42
Location
USA
LOL

That one just reaffirmed that open carry is NOT "disturbing the peace" as it is so often tagged.

We will have to do better than that to sell it. One thing about the progressives, they never buy their own BS :)



That's for sure! :lol: But to a Progressives its the ends that justifies the means. Suggestive thought can be a powerful tool. Its the same kind of thing like watching msnbc every night. :lol:
 
Top